On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:30 AM, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One of the problems is that existing binaries set the exclude_guest flag
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/9/292).
[ to zero ]
Yeah. And it apparently *never* worked. So it's not a regression.
> So, requesting users to update their binaries if they want to use precise
> sampling is not acceptable. A 100% catastrophic failure of all running VMs
> is acceptable? All VMs will crash and there is no direct causal
> relationship.
So instead, you expect everybody else - for whom things *used* to work
- to upgrade their binary, or their scripts, or just start using an
insane command line flag that makes no sense for them? Forcing
non-virtualization users to use a "only trace the host" flag is crazy.
Either way, somebody will be unhappy. No question about that. But our
rule in the kernel is "no regressions".
Now, I do agree that for "perf", it's fairly easy to say "just
recompile". I can do it in seconds, and it would presumably solve my
problem by just making the "host only" case the default, and I don't
need the "H" any more.
But that whole "no regressions" really is important. I can work around
things very easily, but the "no regressions" rule really means that I
should never *need* to work around things.
So when I see a regression, I consider it a major bug, even if the
workaround is trivial.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
